Making Better Puzzles

Puzzle Logic

[Warning: I'm going to dissect the GUE Tech locker puzzle from
Zork Grand Inquisitor. I expect the statue of limitations on it
have run out, but nevertheless, you have been warned.]

At some level, puzzles in adventure games are supposed to be a
challenge. Overcoming or finding a way past obstacles is part of the
enjoyment of many games. However, puzzles can become too much of a
challenge when we can't figure out how to solve them. Sometimes we
miss a clue or don't take the time to really think things through, but
other times it seems as if there is no way to solve a puzzle short of
reading the designer's mind.

I believe that the logic of a puzzle plays a large role in making
it solveable or insurmountable. The thing is, the logic of puzzles
doesn't necessarily need to be the logic of the real world.

I admit this sounds like a bad clue from The Riddler: when is logic
not logical? Let me explain by breaking puzzles down into three broad
categories: "common" sense, self-consistent, and wacked.

"Common" Sense

"Common" sense puzzles are ones which require you to apply a bit of
real-world knowledge to solve it. Perhaps you have to know a little
bit of trivia, or apply a common object in an unusual manner.

I see I am spouting vagueness. Let me give you a contrived
example. You're locked in an office, but you know that the exit will
automatically unlock if only you can set off the fire alarm. There's
not a lot in the room: a desk, maybe a desk lamp, a chair, and the
fire sensor above the desk.

You riffle through the desk, only to find no papers or handy oily
rags with which to start a fire. You don't even happen to have a
matchbook on you, since you're trying to quit smoking. Besides, a real
fire could easily get out of control and kill you. What can you
do?

You can remember that that desk lamp, if it's an incandescent bulb,
gives off heat. Get on top of the desk, turn on the lamp, and hold the
bulb near the sensor until the fire alarm is tripped.

Granted, I'd need to give you some clues to make this puzzle fair,
like telling you how hot the lamp gets when you turn it on. However,
it illustrates my basic point: you have to remember that incandescent
bulbs not only give off light but also heat. You have to apply some
real-world knowledge and logic to the situation.

In one sense, these kinds of puzzles are the easiest to design. You
don't have to spend too much time figuring out the logic of the
situation, because the real world hands most of that to you. All you
have to do is figure out what the unusual situation or needed object
will be. In another sense, these puzzles are hard to design because
they can be hard to make fair. That's why I put the quotation marks
around "common." What you or I may consider to be common knowledge may
not be. Does everyone know how to cook a baked potato, or how many
feet are in a kilometer?

Self-Consistent

While many puzzles fall under the previous category, there are
those which have a logic all their own. Consider the machines in
Myst, or most any machine-studded adventure. You have to
twiddle with them, figure out how they work, and then apply that
knowledge.

To be reasonable, these puzzles need to be self-consistent. They
have to follow a deducible set of rules which can consistently be
applied. The logic they follow may have nothing to do with the real
world, but there is a logic nonetheless.

One of my favorite examples of this kind of puzzle is the GUE Tech
locker puzzle in Zork Grand Inquisitor. In the abandoned magic
college of GUE Tech, there are a group of lockers that you want access
to. However, they're locked in some non-obvious way. How do you open
them?

If you look around the lobby of GUE Tech, you'll find a bulletin
board. On it is a note which reads something along the lines of, "The
vending machine has broken; lockers will be unavailable until it is
fixed." Hm. Then, if you look at the lockers and at the items in the
vending machine, you'll notice that they are both arranged
similarly.

It turns out that, if you put money in the vending machine and
press a button, the corresponding locker opens. In fact, one of the
items will get stuck in the machine, and the corresponding locker will
also be jammed.

Stupid? Yeah, probably. Goofy? Undoubtedly. But it follows its own
logic, one which you can discover by noticing the clues and by
experimenting.

The trouble with these kinds of puzzles is that players must be
able to work out the logic behind the puzzles. If the logic to a
puzzle is too obscure and is not hinted at by clues, players will be
unable to solve it except by thrashing about.

Wacked

Finally, there are the puzzles that seem to make no sense. They are
the common-sense puzzles which require non-common and hard-to-find
knowledge; they are the self-consistent puzzles that are not
consistent or have logic that can't be deduced. Maybe they require you
to read the designer's mind to know what's going on. Perhaps they are
examples of the dreaded guess-the-verb/hunt-the-hotspot puzzles.

Whatever the cause, these puzzles cause unplanned anguish and
decrease our enjoyment. They are the puzzles which make us want to
stop playing adventure games.